Acumen+giving+you+the+edge

Supreme Court rejects damages bid in Atomic Veterans case

14 March 2012 | By Sam Chadderton

  • Print
  • Comments (6)

Related Articles

Related Firms

Silks from Henderson Chambers and 4 New Square have helped the Government win a limitation judgment against a group of ex-servicemen in the ‘Atomic Veterans’ case.

Seven Supreme Court judges dismissed by a four-to-three majority an appeal by 1950s nuclear weapon testers who wanted compensation from the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for allegedly being exposed to radiation fallout.

Charles Gibson QC and Adam Heppinstall of Henderson, Leigh-Ann Mulcachy QC of 4 New Square, and David Evans of One Crown Office Row, acted on behalf of the MOD, having been instructed by the Treasury Solicitor. They had argued that the claims were brought too late.

The Court of Appeal had ruled against nine out of 10 lead claimants on behalf of the atomic veterans, who then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Today the Supreme Court ruled that their case was time-barred.

The vets and their relatives were represented by James Dingemans QC of 3 Hare Court, Catherine Foster and Nadia Whittaker of Crown Office Chambers and Mark James of Temple Garden Chambers, after being instructed by Rosenblatt Solicitors partner Neil Sampson.

Supreme Court Justices Lord Phillips, Lady Hale and Lord Kerr dissented, but were outvoted by Lords Walker, Brown, Mance and Wilson and the veterans’ appeal was thrown out.

The MOD lawyers have maintained that no causal link can be proved between the veterans’ illnesses and the South Pacific nuclear testing.

The veterans had contended that they did not have proper knowledge that their illnesses were connected to the atomic tests until medical research was published in 2007.

It has been reported that legal aid for the case was withdrawn several years ago and that both sides have spent millions of pounds on the case.

See all Related Jobs, Briefings & CPD/Events

Readers' comments (6)

  • martin shergold | 15-Mar-2012 12:39 pm

    i am severely dissappointed in the judges of the supreme court. maybe u should look at my fathers file. I had a father that was exposed to S I X atomic bombs at MOnte Bello and Maralinga. When u see the medical letters you judges best run and hide cos God is now going to curse you to the same death my father had. Time barred is that your excuse? Give me a break. Corrupt Government will never succeed. Shergold Australia.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 15-Mar-2012 1:02 pm

    Limitation serves a useful purpose, but I cannot help but feel that in this instance justice has not been served.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 10-Jul-2012 0:20 am

    It is quite shameful for the Supreme Court to mention throwing out the case of these humble, honest human veterans who dedicated their young and healthy life in carrying out these atomic nuclear dumping all in the name of Britian. I really sympathise with them, let alone the birds, fish, grass, sea, soil, rocks, stones, sand and the trees. Who knows what great damages this has done to the environment in the Pacific. If your reason was time barred, so for what reason could be given when the illness of this atomic dumping is affecting the children of the veterans right now and so their grandchildren and great-grandchildren and so forth. I hope that God will forgive you for throwing out this case and unfortunately God sees everything we do and we cannot hide from him. I for one believe, that your money will not be able to pay for the damages that has already been done to these veterans, even if the case was won, even all that money will not be able to cover for the lives of these veterans and their families. Quite a shame though.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • james mccrorie | 30-Nov-2012 2:51 pm

    thetruthhasbeenignorediwastheir

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • God christ jesus | 8-Dec-2012 10:31 pm

    I am British army received nothing atomic veterans radiation exposure veterans compensation act, british military sexual trauma personal very serious injury, in additional compensation

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Colonel Saunders | 30-Jan-2013 3:38 pm

    Personally, I am just so glad to see that justice has prevailed in this case. Why is everybody so anti-MOD? the law is the law is the law. Surely the vets should have devoted their energies to amending the Statute of Limitations, if they felt it necessary, rather than on what has proved to be fruitless litigation. Which law firm told them they had a case in the first place?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Related CPD/Events

View all CPD/Events

  • Print
  • Comments (6)

Most popular

Most commented

Most emailed